Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:There isn't objective quality just because you or any number of other people believe there is. I can pick apart your earlier comment more, but you didn't reply very directly to what I'd just said, so I'm not sure it would be worth the time.

Irrelevant. That was not the reasoning presented.

You didn't actually present any reasoning. You just made a bunch of ridiculous, errant claims.

Of course I presented reasoning.

However, I did not say that objective quality exists just because you say so, or just because I say so.

That is what you said, and that is wrong.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:any painting by Van Gogh.

Unless you don't happen to particularly like Van Gogh's paintings, in which case it's not really all that great.

But I DO like his work, obvuously.
I was expressing an opinion.

Is the work of Van Gogh art because you like it?

Or, is there an objective quality in the work of Van Gogh that causes it to be art.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Harbal wrote:
Unless you don't happen to particularly like Van Gogh's paintings, in which case it's not really all that great.

But I DO like his work, obvuously.
I was expressing an opinion.

Is the work of Van Gogh art because you like it?

Or, is there an objective quality in the work of Van Gogh that causes it to be art.

Because I like it.
There is nothing objective about artistic quality. Values are subjective. You can list criteria, and get other people to agree with you, but that would not make them objective in the way I think you mean.

Sorry walker, but I have to primarily agree with HC, as much as it pains me to do so.

What art is best, is dependent upon what someone likes the most. It's subjective!
But, an art piece is an object and the method in which it was created might be extremely difficult and time consuming, such that only someone that is familiar with the process can sense the beauty of it's objective reality, which surely can factor into their subjective opinion as to it's worth.

Walker wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote: Irrelevant. That was not the reasoning presented.

You didn't actually present any reasoning. You just made a bunch of ridiculous, errant claims.

Of course I presented reasoning.

However, I did not say that objective quality exists just because you say so, or just because I say so.

That is what you said, and that is wrong.

I didn't want to have to laboriously do this, because it's just going to be a waste of my time, but okay:

"The virtue of consumerism is to discover objective quality inherent in the principle of the item."

This is an opinion--you're telling us what you consider to be virtue; namely the "virtue of consumerism" in this case. You're not providing the slightest bit of reasoning there for the idea of there being objective quality inherent in anything. You're merely claiming that there is objective quality inherent in things, and then presenting your opinion that discovering the same is somehow "the virtue of consumerism" (which frankly reads like gobbledy-gook, but whatever).

"This is why the best seek the best and recognize the best."

There's no reasoning there. First off, "the best" is just floating, unanchored to anything--which is certainly not how reasoning works, especially when the terms at hand are those at issue.

Secondly, it's just a claim. There's no argumentation to support it. What you consider to be a virtue certainly doesn't support it somehow. That would be quite the non sequitur.

What is the reasoned support for "the best" seeking "the best" and recognizing "the best"? Who knows? You sure don't present anything like that in the post at hand. It's just a claim that you expect people to accept because you uttered it.

On the other hand, of course people seek out things that they consider better than other things, but there's nothing objective to any of that.

"The designation of 'best' does not confer or define 'best,' for best is a recognition rendered into concept, rather than a creation by concept."

Guess what? That's a claim, and you're offering no argumentation or reasoning for it. It's a recognition and not a creation/conferral because . . . ? Well, who knows? You're sure not telling us. You're just claiming that that is so. Unfortunately, it's not at all unusual for folks to feel that their claims are well-constructed arguments, but other folks' claims are not, where they don't at all recognize that they're not doing anything different than the other guy. That's simply because folks agree with one set of claims and not another. The set they agree with they feel are "reasoned."

"Consumers on a budget seek the best bang for the buck."

This is simply a restatement, more or less, of "This is why the best seek the best and recognize the best," and we already covered the problems with that. It's worth pointing out, once again, that "Consumers on a budget seek the best bang for the buck" is simply a CLAIM you're making, with no argumentative or reasoned (or empirical) support for the claim.

"Virtuous consumers not on a budget and unbound from the cost/benefit principle simply seek the objective best with caution to the winds and price be damned."

Again, basically a restatement, you're just commenting on whether people have to worry about money or not, and also a restatement of your gobbledy-gooky opinion re "virtue."

So absolutely no reasoning or argumentation in this post. We can see that easily by trying to formalize what might possibly count as an argument above. We'd get just a string of variable letters with no connection to each other aside from some being repeated. That's not an argument or reasoning. It's just a bunch of jive-ass claims.

When one is employing reasoning, one claim logically follows from another, or from some set of other claims. And ideally, the claims logically follow from premises that are accepted by all parties involved (otherwise you might have a valid, but not a sound argument in at least some views). Reasoning isn't a bunch of claims that don't at all follow from anything else one has said. You don't have a valid argument at all. Nothing in the post at issue follows from anything else you said. It's just a bunch of logically unconnected claims, all absent argumentative/logical/reasoned and/or empirical support.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Harbal wrote:
Unless you don't happen to particularly like Van Gogh's paintings, in which case it's not really all that great.

But I DO like his work, obvuously.
I was expressing an opinion.

Is the work of Van Gogh art because you like it?

Or, is there an objective quality in the work of Van Gogh that causes it to be art.

It's art because it's a painting. Painting is one of the arts.

It's good (to me--good is always to someone) because I like it.

I skimmed it. Superficial and shallow analysis, and be grateful for that much feedback.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is now very good evidence that he in fact did cut off his entire ear and gave it to a young woman, the object of his affections.

Just like a man to give a totally inappropriate gift!

I'm sorry, HC. Hopefully this insight into women will save you from making a big mistake.

Lacewing wrote: I'm sorry, HC. Hopefully this insight into women will save you from making a big mistake.

Let's just hope you gave him the insight before he cut off any body parts.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sorry walker, but I have to primarily agree with HC, as much as it pains me to do so.

What art is best, is dependent upon what someone likes the most. It's subjective!
But, an art piece is an object and the method in which it was created might be extremely difficult and time consuming, such that only someone that is familiar with the process can sense the beauty of it's objective reality, which surely can factor into their subjective opinion as to it's worth.

Never apologize for your limitations, or for what you are.

At the prices original name-art commands, there’s a whole lotta consensus in subjectivity. Does a consensus of subjectivity amount to objective truth? Of course not. The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be, as Hobbes knows. Fidelity to the inherent qualities of the medium is how Michaelangelo knew to remove all that was not the form envisioned in marble. Artists such as Duchamp were reactionary though he did possess technical skill. In other words, their work would have much less meaning unless connected with what preceded it, in art and culture. Realists in any medium require minimal audience participation. Naturalists exaggerate realism in any medium. Realism can also be romanticized, and there is market for that in the velveteen Elvis crowd where the viewer fills in the missing realism. A lot of modern art was academic reaction, distortions upon distortions upon distortions of realism. Meaning required context for appreciation, though early reactions to variations on realism had inherent quality without education, e.g., the experience of Cezanne’s use of advancing colors in the background, and receding colors in the foreground.

Walker wrote:The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be

Are you saying something different there than "x has properties F and G, because its material constituents have properties F and G"? If so, if you're saying something different than that there, just what are you saying?

Greta wrote:I sometimes wonder if our artistic regression is a temporary trend or if art and music will disappear as we become ever more machinelike.

I think the latter is in process of becoming more true not in the sense of disappearing but simply becoming inactive by archiving when no-longer serving an active interest. Our machine-like progeny - if we get that far - will have their own art which would probably appear alien and incomprehensible to us and perhaps not even accepted as art by us. If the human is in a state of transition and then equally so will be their sensibilities regarding the aesthetic in which there is no accounting for taste.

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sorry walker, but I have to primarily agree with HC, as much as it pains me to do so.

What art is best, is dependent upon what someone likes the most. It's subjective!
But, an art piece is an object and the method in which it was created might be extremely difficult and time consuming, such that only someone that is familiar with the process can sense the beauty of it's objective reality, which surely can factor into their subjective opinion as to it's worth.

Never apologize for your limitations, or for what you are.

He's apologising for your inadequacy.

At the prices original name-art commands, there’s a whole lotta consensus in subjectivity. A consensus of subjectivity amount to objective truth? Of course not. The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be, as Hobbes knows..

I know far better than you are capable of imagining.
The only way you can get to art having "objectively" agreed criteria, is EXACTY where you get consensus in subjectivity; as that is exactly the moment fools like your self convince themselves that there can be objective values that transcend human opinion.

It's called intersubjectivity and is often confused with objectivity.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:In my town every years for consecutive four weeks in May and also in December people open up their houses all over the town. The event draws in thousands of artists. ...

The beauty of art is in the making as far as I am concerned. When people ask me what is my favourite sculpture, I always say the next one.

Encouraging move in your town. I guess my impression was gained by observing the mainstream rather than community level activities (I ended up in a conservative suburb which only displays G-rated a"art" publicly).

It seems like you approach sculpture like a performance art in that the visceral pleasure of the process is usually most of the game, sometimes the entire game.

Dubious wrote:

Greta wrote:I sometimes wonder if our artistic regression is a temporary trend or if art and music will disappear as we become ever more machinelike.

I think the latter is in process of becoming more true not in the sense of disappearing but simply becoming inactive by archiving when no-longer serving an active interest. Our machine-like progeny - if we get that far - will have their own art which would probably appear alien and incomprehensible to us and perhaps not even accepted as art by us. If the human is in a state of transition and then equally so will be their sensibilities regarding the aesthetic in which there is no accounting for taste.

That sounds about right to me. I wonder if the music will be as diverse? The increased interconnectedness would seem to lead us to greater homogeneity. Certainly art in the commercial spheres has become less individualistic, quirky and experimental. Over time the bean counters worked out the formulae for maximal sales and gradually tweezed out the oddities and exceptions to create generic forms that seem to tick all the boxes revealed in sales analyses.

Interestingly, this seems to echo humanity's future in nature, gradually homogenising and eliminating ever more of the environment until there remains only relatively sterile, synthetic products and the algorithms that brought them into being. Both the arts and humanity generally are generally becoming ever less physical (with physical needs ever more delegated to specialsed human or machine assistance), ever more a matter of management than execution. The arts and humanity generally are ever more layered with various formulae, with animal emotionalism looking ever more like icing on the cake rather than the cake itself.